-
1
Alain Gauthier – September 06
Developing Collective Leadership:Partnering in Multi-stakeholder
Contexts
(Included in Part IV of the book Leadership is Global:Bridging
Sectors and Communities)
Executive Summary: In this chapter, Alain Gauthier, a senior
leadership coachand facilitator working worldwide with the top
management of major corporations,the United Nations, and other
international institutions, describes in detail theapplication of
the partnership paradigm in multi-stakeholder context. Based onhis
experience in facilitating the emergence of sustainable local and
globalpartnerships, the author discusses multiple approaches and
tools that can beapplied to help diverse leaders mature together as
“boundary crossers”, whileaddressing critical issues that cannot be
solved within a single organization orsector.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore how collective
leadership skills can bedeveloped – along with genuine partnering
attitudes and competencies – to makemulticultural partnerships and
networks across the public, private and civil societysectors both
effective and sustainable.
It is primarily based on my experience in designing programs and
adaptinglearning tools to develop leadership in multi-stakeholder
contexts, as well as onnumerous exchanges with some of my
colleagues in the field. I have spent manyyears helping leadership
teams and leaders grow through facilitation andcoaching – one
organization or sector at a time. But my more recent work
hasconvinced me that partnering across sectors offers unique
challenges andopportunities for leaders of any sector to accelerate
their own development, whilecontributing to solve some of the
world’s most intractable problems – such ashunger, poverty or
depletion of natural resources.
I have structured the chapter around a series of questions on
leadership,partnering, and approaches to capacity building, and
added a few practical toolsin the appendix. To illustrate some of
the questions and approaches, I have alsointerwoven the story of an
actual development effort that I co-lead recently for aGlobal
Foundation, starting with the following vignette.
The place is a hotel in a tropical resort on the West African
Coast that has seenbetter days thirty or forty years ago. The time
is September 2004. Thirty-fivepeople are assembled for three days –
at the invitation of the country’s Ministerof Health – to create
the collective capacity to design, launch and sustain anutrition
program that will reach the most vulnerable members of the
population:women of child-bearing age and young children. The group
includes civilservants from three ministries, representatives from
local millers, multinational
-
2
food companies and UN agencies, as well as consumer advocates,
communityorganizers, academics and researchers. Two representatives
from a neighboringcountry have also been invited because they are
engaged in a similar program.The facilitating team includes the
partnership development officer of the GlobalFoundation that will
finance the program for three years, a local consultant, andmyself.
Our charter is to help create the conditions that will enable
effectivepartnering among the local and international actors that
need to be involved.The goal is to launch the program successfully
so that it can be sustainedbeyond the three-year grant. The
Foundation will make the grant funds availableonly if the country
demonstrates its willingness to create a partnership or
alliancethat will orient and oversee the management of the
program.
This gathering is designed as the first in a series of
partnership- and leadership-building workshops. Most people in the
room know each other because thecountry is not very large and many
activities are concentrated in the capital. Butthe first exchanges
between participants reveal that they have little if noexperience
of working in collaboration, even within the same sector:
somerivalries among ministries and among food processors are
surfacing, as well asnumerous individual attributions about other
participants or organizations. Whatwill be needed to help the group
take its first steps toward becoming a learningcommunity, and for
collective leadership to emerge among the key protagonists?
What is collective leadership?
Leadership can be defined as speaking, listening, and acting in
a way thatenables an organization or community to address its key
challenges mosteffectively.
Collective leadership (or co-leadership, for short) is, simply
stated, leadingtogether as partners. Petra Künkel (1) defines it as
“the capacity of a group ofleaders to deliver a contribution in
service of the common good throughassuming joint and flexible
leadership, according to what is perceived andrequired”. Each
co-leader feels no need to personally stand out or imposetheir
views, but cultivates the ability to know or sense what needs
doing.
Steve Pierce observes that in many non-Western cultures,
leadership isconsidered a collective rather than an individual
capacity; leadership isdefined then as a relationship or a process,
not a person.
Unlike individual heroic leadership, co-leadership embraces the
diversity ofpeople and perspectives, and frees up self-initiative
and collectiveintelligence. When practiced across sectors, it
creates the conditions forsocietal learning and innovation through
an increased sense ofinterdependence and a deeper trust in
self-organization.
-
3
What are some key conditions for effective partnering?
A good amount of research and practical work has been done over
the last 15years on the conditions in which partnering can be most
effective. I have beeninvolved myself over that period as a
consultant, facilitator, and coach inhelping people collaborate and
partner at three different levels: within anorganization (such as
physicians, nurses, administrators, and board membersin a
hospital), across organizations (such as member companies of
theSociety for Organizational Learning), and across sectors (such
as ministries,businesses and civil society organizations in
countries applying for a grantfrom the Global Foundation mentioned
in the vignette).
Using Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant framework (2), I have found
that effectivepartnering requires four types of conditions that are
complementary andinterdependent:- Individual intention: Co-leaders
commit to mutual respect, transparency
and learning, are willing to surface and challenge their
assumptions, andadopt a win-win-win perspective.
- Individual behavior: Partners genuinely listen and give
helpful feedback toone another, walk their talk, respect
jointly-defined ground rules and honortheir commitments.
- Culture: The partnership is characterized by shared values and
vision,perceived complementary viewpoints and skills, open and
frequentcommunications, search for synergy, and a long-term
view.
- Structure: The partnership structures and systems include
concretecommon goals and priorities, behavioral ground rules,
agreed uponmeasures of impact, shared benefits and rewards, clear
accountability,and shared responsibility for the whole.
In a similar perspective, Riane Eisler (3) characterizes the
partnership modelby: equal value (or equivalence) among partners;
mutual trust and a lowdegree of fear or aggression; myths and
stories that honor and validatepartnership; egalitarian structures
and leadership based on level of self-actualization.
A number of interviews with experienced partners have confirmed
my ownfindings that partnering at its best is a transformative
experience that enableseach co-leader to grow personally, while
generating benefits for the wholethat could not have been produced
otherwise. This is only possible whenpartners are committed to both
support and challenge each other, so thatoptimal learning
conditions exist within the partnership.
-
4
What makes collective leadership particularly essential and
challenging inmulti-sector partnerships?
Multi-sector partnerships have been advocated – since the 1992
EarthSummit and the UN adoption of Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) – asthe new development paradigm for addressing some of the
world’s toughestproblems such as poverty and malnutrition. It only
makes sense to combinediverse perspectives and capabilities in
order to generate novel whole-systemsolutions that no single sector
could design and implement on their own.
In Künkel’s terms, these partnerships are “collective change
interventionsgeared at contributing to more sustainable development
between the private,public, and civil society sectors”. They can be
viewed as “a response tocomplexity and to the need for multi-actor
change in behavior”. Ideally,representatives from the three sectors
agree to share risks and benefitsequitably, and to fully use their
complementary perceptions, competenciesand resources for the
greater good. In contrast, when two of the sectors relyon the third
one to handle an issue without proper checks and balances – asin
the case of the privatization of water supply in some developing
countries –the solutions have proven not to be beneficial to all
stakeholders involved,and therefore not sustainable. American
entrepreneur Jim Rouse points outthat business leaders have to
learn to think and act “beyond borders’ in orderto correct the
imbalances created by the system that generated the wealth.
The Global Foundation mentioned in the vignette acts as a broker
in poolingand disbursing large sums of money from private and
public donors in thefield of nutrition. It has a very ambitious
vision: significant reduction ofmalnutrition in at least 40
developing countries by 2010, consistent with theUN’s
nutrition-related MDGs. This vision can only be realized
througheffective multi-sector partnerships that make wise use of
the best resourcesand practices available locally, regionally and
globally. It implies that acountry’s local government works in
partnership with local businesses andlocal NGOs, as well as donors,
international agencies, international NGOsand multinational
corporations.
Over the last 15 years, the Prince of Wales’ International
Business LeadersForum (IBLF) has studied a number of public-private
partnerships anddistilled what they learned in a series of books
and courses. On the whole,relatively few cross-sector partnerships
have consistently delivered on theirexpected outcomes. One of the
reasons is that not enough emphasis hasbeen put on the development
of co-leadership capabilities and thecorresponding changes in
partners’ habitual ways of thinking and behaving.The research done
by IBLF and others in the field has shown that
multi-sectorpartnerships are never easy, comfortable, secure, safe,
quick, or cheap.Successful partnerships are values driven, and
require from all partnerscommitment to a larger goal, involvement
of the heart, willingness to
-
5
communicate and cooperate across boundaries, creativity,
courage,perseverance, accountability, and collective responsibility
for the whole, i.e.co-leadership capabilities.
What are some of the initial steps that can be used in
addressing thechallenge of multi-stakeholder partnering?
A first step in building partnering and co-leadership capacity
is for therepresentatives of each of the sectors to acknowledge
openly their respectiveand complementary resources, competencies,
and weaknesses. Forexample, in his work with Global Action
Networks, Steve Waddell (4) pointsto:- Local governments’
regulatory and taxation power, their enforcement
apparatus, but also the slow pace of their decision making and
thedifficulty in coordinating projects involving several
ministries.
- Local NGOs’ community bonds and trust, as well as their
support andvoice for the vulnerable and marginalized, but also
their limited materialmeans and – for some – their ideological
bias.
- Local businesses’ production and distribution systems and
their efficiency,but also their difficulty to integrate long-term
concerns and their focus oncustomers with medium and upper
incomes.
- Multinational companies’ technology, logistics and marketing
know-how,but also their lack of experience and credibility in
serving the needs of thepoorest people.
A second step for the participants is to recognize as well the
challenges thatare specific to multi-sector partnerships. Some of
them are linked to thecharacteristics of this type of partnership,
as summarized in IBLF’s PartneringToolbook (5):- Each sector tends
to have attributions about the others. For example, the
public sector is often perceived as bureaucratic and
intransigent, theprivate sector as single-minded and short-term
oriented, the civil societysector as combative and territorial.
These attributions reflect significantdifferences in worldview
between sectors that do not vary greatly fromcountry to
country.
- Each partner organization may have conflicting priorities,
competitiveissues within their own sector, and some degree of
intolerance vis-à-visthe other sectors.
- The general public may be skeptical or have inflated
expectations of thevalue the partnership can bring in a short
amount of time.
- The local political, economic, and social climate, and the
country’s abilityto access external resources may also affect the
effectiveness of thepartnership.
- There is no clear hierarchy among partners, although there are
obviouslydifferences in power and influence.
-
6
- Partnership leaders may have inadequate partnering beliefs and
skills, betoo narrowly focused on their role, or have restricted
internal authority orexternal influence.
Other challenges of multi-stakeholder partnerships arise from
the kind ofissues they are called to deal with:- These problems are
complex by nature, and cannot be solved using
simple, traditional solutions. Using Adam Kahane’s distinctions
(6), theyusually involve a large number of actors and stakeholders
that havediverse perspectives and interests – what Kahane
characterizes as “socialcomplexity”; they can only be solved by
considering the system as a wholeand over time rather than by
fixing some of its elements piece by piece –“dynamic complexity”;
they don’t usually have precedents and requireemerging rather than
existing solutions – “generative complexity”. Thesethree kinds of
complexity compound each other and require an inclusive,systemic
and creative type of co-leadership.
- When dealing with persistent and worsening issues such as
malnutrition,poverty, or environmental degradation, first-order
change (adaptationwithin the current rules of the game) or even
second-order change(redefining the rules of the game) will not be
sufficient. As Bettye Pruittand Steve Waddell note (7),
“third-order change redefines the game itself;all the system actors
need to participate and rethink their roles. Forexample, learning
and change of this scale occurred when peopleconcerned about ocean
fisheries shifted from thinking about ‘speciesmanagement’ to
‘regional ocean management’…When third-orderchanges happen across a
society, we refer to them as ‘societal learning’”.Third-order
change is sometimes called transformation: it uses the energyof the
system to correct or reinvent the system itself.
A third step is for the partners to agree on a few key
principles or values, aswell as on a common language that will
enable them to address the problemsthey face within the context of
a shared understanding:- Partnering principles such as equity,
mutual benefit, and transparency are
likely to appeal to each of the sectors. Equity implies an equal
right to beat the table and a validation of those contributions
that are not measurablesimply in terms of cash value or public
profile. A healthy partnership workstoward achieving specific
benefits for each partner as well as commonbenefits to all
partners. Openness and honesty in working relationshipsare
pre-conditions of trust – only with transparent working will
apartnership be truly accountable to its donors and other
stakeholders.
- Language should also be used as a partnership-building tool by
agreeingon and using terms that are neutral rather than “imported”
from one of thesectors. For example, benefit will be preferred to
profit, agreement tocontract, action plan to business plan, working
group to committee, reviewto evaluation, and participation to
consultation.
-
7
In the case of the West African country, a good part of the
first and seconddays of the workshop were spent in both large and
small groupsacknowledging the differences in competencies and
viewpoints acrosssectors. A consensus began to emerge on two or
three principles aroundwhich to structure the Alliance. And
participants started to adopt a commonlanguage, with the help of
the communication distinctions and toolsintroduced and demonstrated
by the facilitators. They gradually shared anunderstanding of the
roots of their difficulties in collaborating on the launch ofthe
nutrition project. A willingness to speak and listen more openly
becamepalpable by the end of the second day.
What are some of the learning approaches that can be most
effective inbuilding co-leadership capacity?
Capacity building means developing the personal attitudes and
skills,relationships, agreements, supporting infrastructures and
resources requiredto do the work. It also means continuing to
improve the ways it is done, thusenabling self-reliance and
sustainability.
Changing attitudes and behaviors requires action-learning
strategies:- Individual leadership competencies – such as
self-awareness, listening,
appreciating diverse views – improve gradually through practice,
andparticularly when dealing with conflictive or paradoxical
issues.
- Making a partnership work over time – by increasing the
quality ofrelationships and agreements among partners – provides a
fertile groundfor understanding interdependencies and developing
co-leadership skills.
- Changes in individual attitudes and group beliefs or norms
make newstructures, systems and incentives effective; together they
enable shifts inindividual and collective behavior that are
enduring.
- Action-learning works best when designed to achieve
“multiplyingbenefits” – when all learning is in the service of
purposeful change and allchange is designed to support on-going
learning.
The action-learning approach I helped design and partly
implement with theGlobal Foundation included the following steps:-
Develop with IBLF – and make available in 16 languages – The
Partnering
Toolbook (5) to guide the creation and launch of a partnership
in thecountries that respond to the Foundation’s request for
proposal. TheToolbook includes a description of the key phases in
the partneringprocess – from scoping and identifying the potential
partners all the way tosustaining or terminating the partnership –
as well as eight tools to helpdesign, develop, manage, and evaluate
the partnership.
- Interview local leaders to determine country-specific needs,
and involvethem in designing a customized co-leadership
capacity-building program.
- Conduct an initial co-leadership development workshop in order
to create
-
8
shared values and vision, and to establish both individual and
collectiveaction-learning patterns as a foundation for subsequent
work.
- Develop a network of local or regional facilitators and
coaches, and enablethem to adapt learning approaches to the
evolving needs of the localpartnership.
- Broaden and deepen the shared vision with a wider group of
leaders –whose commitment will be crucial for the success of the
Nutrition Program– and translate it with them into a few strategic
priorities that will mobilizethe energies and provide a common
practice and learning field (8).
- Orchestrate and offer individual and team coaching within and
acrosseach sector to facilitate Program implementation.
- Conduct follow-up workshops to reflect on the progress of the
Alliance,share the lessons learned, and further develop local
capacity to lead andcollaborate.
The initial co-leadership development workshop – such as the one
mentionedin the vignette – is designed as a learning process that
integrates bothindividual and collective learning disciplines. I
have used its basic format withgroups in diverse geographic and
cultural settings to help develop high-performing and learning
teams, and adapted it to a multi-stakeholder context:- The group is
first introduced to the foundations of dialogue and group
learning, practicing in small groups high-quality advocacy and
inquiry, aswell as genuine or empathetic listening. This activity
develops the capacityto see reality at a deeper level – by learning
to surface and question one’smental models and attributions about
others in the group or the issue athand.
- Individual members are then asked to clarify their personal
values andvision, and to share them with a few other participants.
Each small groupthen reports the values mentioned at least twice by
their members, andthe facilitator helps the large group come to a
consensus on a fewcommon values for the partnership; each person is
then invited to name acharacteristic of the working climate (e.g.
convivial, challenging,supportive) that would enable them to
function at their best. Thecomposite desired working environment
that emerges becomes the firstaspect of their shared vision.
- The group then clarifies who the key stakeholders are – whose
attitudesand behavior would be affected by or contribute to the
program (e.g.women and children, local community advocates,
producers anddistributors, health officials, etc.). A number of
them will be represented inthe room but others won’t. The group
members express in shortstatements and in the present tense what
they would want eachstakeholder to think/say/do about the program –
if they were surveyed orinterviewed when the program is successful
(e.g. 3 years from now). Ashared systemic vision will emerge out of
a dialogue on the key themesthat cut across the statements from the
various stakeholders.
- The participants then compare their vision statements to what
they think
-
9
each stakeholder would say if they were surveyed or interviewed
today, inorder to assess the main gaps between the desired
situation and currentreality. By selecting a few crucial areas in
which the gap is greatest andwhere the program can make a
significant difference, the group choosesthen a few strategic
priorities that it will commit to actualizing over the next12-18
months. The role of each partner is specified for each of
thesepriorities, as well as the initial steps that will enable the
group to review itsprogress toward them.
- Finally, the participants choose and commit to respecting a
few groundrules that translate their shared values into desirable
behaviors and wouldenable them to work most effectively together –
for instance, speakingone’s mind without offending, suspending
judgment when listening,dealing with facts not rumor. Each group
member then publicly identifiesthe one or two rules that will most
challenge their habitual behavior, sayswhy, and seeks the help of
their partners in changing it. Participants arereminded that trust
is earned over time by consistently honoring one’scommitments.
There are several conditions that will enable a group of
partners to benefitmost from this type of workshop and subsequent
steps, and thus developindividually as co-leaders:- Partners are
willing to learn from each other, build on their complementary
skills, and facilitate each other’s growth.- Individual
differences in values, perspective or skills are not just
tolerated
but valued by everyone. It means that all group members treat
oneanother as equivalent – i.e. of equal value – rather than
implicitlycomparing and ranking each other as more or less
important than theyare.
- Several group members are willing to make themselves
vulnerable bysharing their personal stories, strengths and
weaknesses, to take the riskof voicing “undiscussable” issues, and
to be called on their individualbehavior in public; their example
is likely to be followed by others, as timegoes.
- At least a few partners demonstrate a level of maturity that
enables themto understand and relate in a constructive way to all
other members of thegroup, rather than react defensively to their
words or behavior.
- Each meeting is carefully prepared, with input from every
participant onthe purpose and outcomes of the meeting, on each
agenda item, and onthe process to be used.
- Group “rituals” such as individual check-ins (sharing one’s
state of mindand heart in the moment), moments of silence, shared
evaluation ofmeetings, and check-outs are valued as ways to
cultivate the collectivefield in which true dialogue and learning
can take place.
In the West African case, a number of these conditions were met
by a criticalmass of the participants. In particular, some of the
business leaders,
-
10
consumer advocates, community leaders and international
agencyrepresentatives set the tone by speaking openly, sharing
their own doubtsand personal challenges, and demonstrating a
willingness to listen and beinfluenced by others. The three
facilitators were also attentive to embody co-leadership attitudes
and behaviors among themselves and with the otherparticipants
throughout the workshop.
What types of tools and assessments can be used to enhance and
monitorco-leadership development?
In my experience, a number of tools can help facilitate the
emergence of truepartnering. They can be introduced before, during
or after the initial co-leadership capacity-building workshop (four
of them are included as tables inthe Appendix).- The Partnership
Assessment Questionnaire (Table 1) uses Ken Wilber’s
Four-Quadrant Framework to prompt each partner to reflect on
theirindividual intentions and actual behaviors, as well as the
current cultureand structure of the partnership. I developed a
first version of this tool forinclusion in The Partnering Toolbook,
and recommend that individual co-leaders refer to it regularly, at
least at each stage in the evolution of thepartnership.
- Strategies for building partnerships (Table 2) – adapted from
RosTennyson’s and Luke Wilde’s book The Guiding Hand (9) – suggest
anumber of alternative ways to deal with the skeptic, change
mindsetsamong partners, cope with multiple demands, and handle the
“pressure”to go public in the early stages.
- Some of the tools based on Chris Argyris’ “action science” can
be veryuseful in helping partners surface and challenge their
mental models,beliefs and assumptions (The Ladder of Inference and
The Left-handColumn), as well as engage in dialogue and mutual
learning (BalancingAdvocacy and Inquiry). They are described in
Sections 35 and 36 of TheFifth Discipline Fieldbook (10).
- The polarity map offered by Barry Johnson (Table 3) is a
useful tool forhelping a group of partners look at the upside and
downside aspects oftwo solutions that are polar opposites. When
combined with the practice ofhigh-quality advocacy and inquiry, it
enables a group to move from an“either or” position linked to
considering mostly the downside of each pole– the polarity is then
experienced as a dilemma – toward a “both and”approach that will
attempt to combine some of the upside aspects of bothpoles. It
helps develop the partners’ capacity to work creatively
withparadoxes.
- The six components of trust (Table 4) – adapted from Stephen
Hacker andMarsha Willard – distinguish components of
trustworthiness and trustwillingness. This tool can be used to
assess periodically the quality ofinterpersonal relationships
within a partnership and lead to enhanced self-
-
11
awareness and learning. Individual assessment results can be
usefullyshared and discussed among partners.
- Bill Veltrop proposes on his website (11) several tools or
“wholenesslenses” that can be very useful for self-diagnosis and
improvement. Inparticular, his Rainbow Lens offers partners a
language to assess thequality of the group’s energy as well as the
quality of relationships andagreements. Looking at current reality
through this lens, co-leaders candetermine how they can personally
contribute to move the partnershiptoward a healthier and more
sustainable state.
In the West African case, tools such as the ladder of inference
and highquality advocacy/inquiry were introduced and practiced
during the workshop;the practice in small groups enabled
participants to become more aware oftheir own “growing edges” while
addressing some significant communicationissues among them. Other
tools included in the Partnering Toolbook wererecommended for
future partnership development work, with the localconsultant’s
help.
As in any action-learning approach, it is important that the
effectiveness of theco-leadership capacity-building program be
monitored over time. I suggestedseveral specific measures of
effectiveness to the Global Foundation, inaddition to the outcomes
of the Nutrition Program itself. They combinesubjective,
inter-subjective and objective assessments:- Periodic
self-evaluation and peer evaluation by the partners themselves,
using some of the questionnaires and assessment tools mentioned
above,supplemented by internal surveys and interviews.
- Documentation by the meeting facilitators and personal coaches
of theprogress in co-leadership made by individuals and the
partners group as awhole, while preserving confidentiality.
- Learning history capturing the evolution of the partnership,
on the basis ofindividual and group interviews of the partners,
other stakeholders, andfacilitators, and on the meeting notes and
evaluations.
- External assessment of the quality of the partnership and of
the value ithas created for the stakeholders after 1 or 2 years of
functioning.
- Documentation of innovative practices and other lessons
learned in thepartnership that could be disseminated to other
countries and regions withsimilar conditions.
To properly monitor the progress of the partnership, co-leaders
need to takethe time for evaluation and reflection, and be open to
observation andfeedback. Both conditions are essential if they are
going to learn individuallyand collectively what is required over
time to sustain true collectiveleadership. Equal attention to
quality of results and relationships is one of thekey
characteristics of effective co-leaders.
-
12
What are the characteristics of emerging types of leaders?
In the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships, some leaders
play the role of“bridge-builder” between members of the alliance.
My colleagues and I agreewith Ros Tennyson and Luke Wilde (9) that
most successful tri-sectorpartnerships are created, built and
nurtured by one or more individuals whohave taken on the role of
the partnership’s “broker” or “midwife”. Although it israrely
formally acknowledged, the broker’s contribution is essential for
apartnership-based development initiative to achieve its goal.- The
broker’s role and tasks will vary with the specific conditions and
the
stage of evolution of the partnership. (S)he can either operate
within theinitiating organization as a coordinator or innovator, or
be independentfrom any organization as an animator or pioneer.
- The broker’s skills usually cover a wide range. They include
rationalanalysis, understanding of the past, administrative skills,
precise speaking,and professional detachment, as well as
imagination, vision of the future,people skills, active listening,
and personal engagement.
- Some of the personal qualities needed by a partnership broker
are:trustworthiness and integrity, willingness to take risks,
equanimity in theface of pressure, personal modesty, and dedication
to the principles ofpartnership.
- Tennyson and Wilde observe that the broker’s role, skills and
qualitiessignificantly overlap the attributes of the types of
leaders that are mostneeded in the 21st century: accountability,
concern for sustainability andcooperation, desire to bring people
together across traditional boundaries,effectiveness in convincing
others to work together for a common purposeand to build lasting
relationships. The authors consider that “partnershipbrokers
epitomize the new style of leadership, operating as catalysts
forchange by ‘guiding’, rather than ‘directing’…They operate like
‘servantleaders’, combining a great dream (or vision) and
day-to-day practicalimplications”.
Several other researchers and authors come to similar findings
about thecharacteristics of emerging types of leader:- Mark Gerzon
gives many examples of “leaders beyond borders” at local,
regional and global levels (12). By embodying and embedding the
valuesof integrity, learning, trust, bridging, and synergy, these
new leadersinteractively address problems that cannot be solved in
a just andsustainable way within the borders of one organization,
sector or country.
- Jerry Porras found that Build to Last companies (13) were
ledby learning leaders or “organizational architects”, whose focus
was onbuilding the company rather than charismatically leading it:
they werethoughtful, quiet, humble, soft spoken, and good
listeners.
- Jim Collins, co-author of Build to Last and author of Good to
Great (14),observed that Good to Great companies were led by “level
5” leaders whodemonstrated a paradoxical blend of personal humility
and great ambition
-
13
for their organization. These leaders measured their true
effectiveness bythe number and quality of leaders who emerged at
all levels in theorganization.
- In An Evolutionary Agenda for the Third Millenium (15), Alan
Lithmannotes that leaders who work as “evolutionary activists” in
this transitionperiod tend to be self-giving (rather than
self-serving), and demonstratehumility, sincerity and integrity in
their daily behavior. They cultivate “innersustainability” as a
condition for promoting outer sustainability.
- Petra Künkel (1), who interviewed 14 leaders from different
parts of theworld for her forthcoming book, quotes one of them as
saying: “When youoperate with the importance of the collective, you
don’t have to have yourego out there. You work from within, or from
behind”. She adds:“Leadership is a conscious collective endeavor if
the diversity of peopleand opinions is not only acknowledged but
also encouraged”. By graduallyreducing personal anxiety and
attachment to self, a leader reduces his/herneed for
self-protection and self-assertiveness, and opens the way
toresponsiveness, service, trust, and sustainable co-creation.
Toparaphrase Nelson Mandela, a leader’s journey is a long road to
innerfreedom, freedom from fear and from the limitations of the
mind.
From a developmental perspective, there is a significant shift
that happensbetween “conventional” and “post-conventional” stages
of personaldevelopment. Bill Torbert and Susanne Cook-Greuter (16)
have designed aninstrument – The Leadership Development Profile,
adapted from JaneLoevinger – that has been used by more than 5000
people to become moreaware of their own stage of development or
“action logic”, and of their“growing edge”.- Conventional leaders
(approximately 90% of the sample) tend to conform
to society’s rules of conduct and expectations. They pursue
rationalknowledge, focus on what can be objectively measured, and
have a timehorizon from one to three years. They search for the
most effective,efficient or right way, and achieve organizational
goals through complexcoordination of efficiently performed tasks.
They tend to be “ethno-centric”– i.e. concerned with the well-being
of a specific group of people – andreact critically to action
logics that are different from their own, believingthat their own
worldview is the valid one.
- Post-conventional leaders (approximately 10% of the sample) do
thingsethically to keep the system whole. They pursue wisdom and
are aware ofthe limitations of the rational mind. They have a time
horizon that canextend to decades or multiple generations, and
prioritize options by viabilityand long-term consequences. They
manifest empathy, maturely handleconflictual situations, and see
more of the whole dynamic system.They collaborate with diverse
stakeholders to optimize among competinggoals across generations.
They tend to be “world-centric” – i.e. concernedwith the well-being
of all living inhabitants of the Earth – and see all stagesof
development as equally legitimate and useful to an organization
or
-
14
community. They are able to communicate with every other action
logic in away that can be understood and accepted, and open the
door for furtherdevelopment.
- The key shift between conventional and post-conventional
leadership is inthe level of awareness and the capacity to be fully
present to what is,rather than filtering it through mental models
or past experience. Aslearners, post-conventional leaders are aware
of who they are at theirbest, inquire continually into their
worldview, and engage others inlearning together. They keep
cleaning, refining and tuning their own “innerinstrument”, and
often ask themselves: what is trying to happen throughme? They are
willing to change the way they use their will, by bothexercising it
and surrendering it to a larger will.
In the West African case, it became clear that at least three of
the participantswere playing a role of partnership broker or
midwife, and demonstrated manyof the qualities of “level 5”,
“bridging” or “post-conventional” leaders. Althoughthey were from
different sectors – the local head of the international
NGOdesignated as the executive agency, the representative of an
internationalagency, and the director of the local subsidiary of a
multinational corporation– the three of them were helping the group
see the situation from the whole.
One of the outcomes of the workshop was that a number of other
participantsbroadened their perspective on what was needed for the
partnership tosucceed, and felt empowered to contribute to that
success from within theirown organization. Many of them were also
aware that individual coaching andadditional facilitating work
would be needed over the next year or so to helpthem adopt personal
and interpersonal practices that would enable them toplay their
part as co-leaders.
What are some of the practices that co-leaders can adopt to
acceleratetheir own development?
A number of personal practices can enable leaders to engage in
individualaction inquiry and shift from conventional to
post-conventional action logics:- Keeping a journal of one’s
personal observations, reflections and learning,
particularly when dealing with challenging relationships,
dilemmas orexternal change.
- Noticing one’s contradictory or paradoxical desires and
longings, anddrawing the distinction between desires and
intentions.
- Paying attention to one’s state of being and to the quality of
one’s talkingand listening, thus becoming more aware of one’s
habitual attitudes andbehavior.
- Surfacing and challenging one’s assumptions, with the help of
tools suchas the left-hand column, the ladder of inference, or
Robert Kegan’s four-
-
15
column conceptual map (17). Reflecting on how what one is doing
iscontributing to things being the way they are.
- Deepening one’s intuition and inner knowing through
consciousness-raising practices such as meditation, chi gung,
martial art practices,improvisational theater; using body awareness
as a way to transcend thelimitations of the mind and deepen one’s
sense of what is.
- Developing one’s capacity to sense reality at a deeper level
and to“presence” what is wanting to emerge, for instance through
solo retreats innature (18).
Interpersonal practices and collective action inquiry among
co-leaders willalso help accelerate the shift from conventional to
post-conventional actionlogics (some of them have already been
mentioned in the previous section):- Practicing high-quality
advocacy and inquiry – as well as empathic
listening – to shift conversations from “talking nice” or
“talking tough” to areflective dialogue, where each protagonist
inquires into and stopsidentifying with their own point of view,
and attempts to see reality from theother’s perspective (19); using
silence to slow down the conversation andopen up to what is trying
to emerge, allowing oneself to be more open andauthentic.
- Practicing presence and flow in a generative dialogue, where
each groupmember listens from the whole and experiences a blurring
of boundaries,where new ideas or solutions are created that no one
claims as their own,and where collective intelligence emerges from
a personal sense ofconnection to the source of creativity.
- Viewing and valuing differences as an expression of needed
diversity.- Considering and addressing conflicts or adverse events
as opportunities
to learn and to find out-of-the-box solutions; seeking out
people who havedifferent, even opposing perspectives, and imagine
being in their shoes;learning to create a safe space for bridging
adversarial positions, wheretrust can be built over time.
- Applying tools such as mental maps and systems thinking
archetypes toaddress complex issues and deepen one’s sense of
interconnectedness.
- Building a shared vision with diverse stakeholders who bring
differentperspectives and competencies.
How can partnering across sectors help accelerate the
development ofcollective leadership?
Looking at both the specific challenges of multi-sector
partnering and thecharacteristics and practices of emerging
co-leaders, it becomes clear thatpartnering across sectors offers
several key opportunities for developingcollective leadership,
while solving societal problems for the benefit of thewhole. I have
summarized and regrouped these opportunities here under
fourinterdependent developmental domains:
-
16
1. Embracing greater diversity- In a monograph titled Good to
Great and the Social Sectors (20), Jim
Collins distinguishes between two types of leadership skills:
executiveand legislative. While most business leaders rely
primarily on executiveskill (i.e. ordering people to act),
government and not-for-profit leadersmust rely on legislative skill
to achieve greatness for theirorganizations. Collins writes:
“Legislative leadership relies more uponpersuasion, political
currency and shared interests to create theconditions for the right
decision to happen”. Both types are importantfor all leaders, but
executive leadership alone won’t work in the socialsectors. In an
increasing complex and connected world, it is likely thatbusiness
leaders can learn a lot from their not-for-profit counterparts,not
just the other way around.
- In developmental terms, a different set of values tends to
predominatein the culture of each sector. The public sector tends
to be focused onorder and equality, the business sector on
opportunities and benefits,and the civil society sector on
community and dignity. Partnershipbrokers and co-leaders learn to
bridge these cultural gaps betweensectors; they use a language and
refer to principles that all others canunderstand and relate to. In
so doing, they tend to operate from post-conventional action
logics. In particular, they are able to move easilyacross diverse
time horizons, decision-making styles andimplementation
capabilities, and apply change methodologies that areadapted to the
needs and possibilities of each sector.
- Cooperating across sectors requires openness and significant
changesin attitudes among partners. For example, some NGO leaders
willneed to interact with corporate leaders they have spent
yearscriticizing; although it may feel initially like
“collaborating with theenemy”, it will certainly enrich their
perspective on key issues.
2. Practicing systems thinking- Development initiatives that
involve several sectors are by nature
complex, with very few precedents to learn from. They require
anability to look at the whole system and to sense reality at a
deeperlevel, in order to detect emerging possibilities and realize
them in acollaborative way. As John W. Gardner suggests, “the
coming togetherof different segments of society creates a wholeness
that incorporatesdiversity”.
- The process of transformation that can take place within a
multi-sectorpartnership depends upon the adoption of entirely new
ways ofthinking and behaving about the issues at hand. It offers
co-leaders anopportunity to examine and challenge together the deep
mentalstructures and habits that sustain the existing system.
- To be effective in addressing the issue they focus on,
partners need tocreate a microcosm of the larger system, with all
participants coming in
-
17
on an equal footing, as issue owners and decision makers. It is
a firststep in building system self-awareness that will lead to
catalyzingcollective action across sectors, and to creating a whole
that is greaterthan the sum of the parts.
- Partnerships, alliances and networks that involve actors at
multiplelevels offer an opportunity to connect
global-national-local as differentplaces in a networked world,
rather than as a top-down hierarchy. Thisis a key skill in evolving
organizations that are neither centralized nordecentralized, but
“uncentralized”, with effective collective leadershipat and across
all levels.
3. Leading change through dialogic processes- Multi-stakeholder
dialogue is central to the change process in
partnerships, alliances, and networks. It is key to achieve
third-orderchange, i.e. transformed deep structures and
relationships. Co-leaderslearn to shift from consulting or managing
stakeholders to includingthem in the core decision-making process.
Dialogic communicationallows coherence to emerge from
diversity.
- True dialogue is not easy to practice within an organization
or a sector.Multi-sector dialogue raises the bar even higher, thus
offering manyopportunities to increase one’s proficiency as a
dialogue convener andfacilitator.
- Dialogic processes happen best in a circle and require
flexible orrotating leadership, one of the key aspects of
collective leadership.
- Partners learn to practice dialogue as a verb (vs. as an
event), as aquality of conversation in their day-to-day activities,
and as a way ofrelating to each other to achieve greater change
impact. They have theopportunity to move into what Hal Saunders
calls “sustained dialogue”– a systematic, open-ended political
process that transforms conflictualrelationships over time.
4. Engaging in personal change- The education, experience and
references of leaders vary widely from
sector to sector. Partnering will likely challenge each
co-leader tostretch beyond their comfort zone, and invite them
often to adopt moreoften a stance of not knowing.
- Reflecting publicly on one’s behavior and lessons learned is
hardenough in homogeneous groups; the challenge is magnified
whenworking across sectors, where personal vulnerability and
transparencyare conditions for building trust.
- Co-leadership is enhanced when human interactions are based
onmutual respect and caring. Compassion for self and others and
asense of solidarity naturally develop among co-leaders, liberating
theirinnovative potential as a group.
- In successful partnerships, co-leaders engage in processes
that inducethem to make conscious decisions to change their
behaviors, and to
-
18
comply with rules by virtue of having participated in the rule
making.They learn through purposeful experiments to determine what
works,and to acknowledge shared responsibility for both problems
andsolutions.
- Cross-sector partnering invites co-leaders to consider issues
frommultiple perspectives, for example as a citizen, a consumer, a
policy-maker or a manager. Contributing to healing the
fragmentation amongsectors and society starts with healing the
fragmentation within oneselfand getting in touch with one’s
humanness.
- Partnerships rely on voluntary participation and coordination
and it isthe human connection that is the true lever for change.
They cannotrely on the traditional uses of power and hierarchical
structures that areprevalent in most businesses and governments.
Learning to establishand cultivate that human connection is a key
dimension of buildingcollective leadership.
- Partners learn the importance of trusting oneself, others, and
life, as aprerequisite for leading and building structures that are
loose enoughto embrace the complexity of people and life, and to
enable collectiveintelligence to manifest.
- Several Global Leadership Initiatives are currently pursued by
usingthe U process (see Adam Kahane’s and Hein Dijksterhuis’
chapter),which posits that transformative change requires accessing
the innersource from which leaders make decisions, individually
andcollectively. This process offers co-leaders an opportunity to
engage ina number of the personal and interpersonal practices
mentioned in thepreceding section.
Awareness of these opportunities has led some multinational
corporations,local businesses, NGOs, international and other public
agencies to activelyseek to collaborate on multi-sector projects,
not only to achieve desirableoutcomes for the larger community, but
also to offer accelerated developmentavenues to some of their most
promising leaders. Over the last fifteen years,opportunities to
partner or network on the most pressing global challengeshave been
increasing – with the growing number and influence of NGOs andcivil
society organizations, and the engagement of corporations in social
andenvironmental issues, for instance as part of the UN Compact.
Leaders insome companies have become network conveners to address
creativelymulti-stakeholder issues such as sustainable logging
methods or the need fora global organic cotton exchange (21).
Cross-organizational networks like theSociety for Organizational
Learning (SoL) and GAN-Net (4) offer theirmembers opportunities to
engage in peer-shadowing, experience-sharing,and joint projects
across sectors.
These initiatives can also be viewed as an attempt to fill the
gaps left by theineffectiveness of traditional intergovernmental
negotiations, for example on
-
19
climate changes or agricultural subsidies. They represent one of
the answersto a growing sense of urgency among leaders in various
walks of life, who aredeeply concerned about the non-sustainable
nature of current economic andsocial trends. As Jean-François
Rischard says, “we are facing 20 globalproblems with 20 years to
solve them”. It will take an increasing number ofcollective leaders
and “evolutionary activists” to meet these global challengesand
respond effectively “to the crisis of the shared space between
humans”that Martin Buber wrote about.
In conclusion, focusing purposefully on collective leadership
development inmulti-stakeholder contexts offer clear benefits at
three levels: individual leaderscan grow faster in maturity and
find increased meaning in their work;organizations in all sectors
can attract and retain people who are looking forsignificant
challenges, while contributing effectively to solving critical
problems;society’s capacity to learn as a whole and heal its
fragmentation also increasesthrough the activity of diverse
co-leaders acting as bridge-builders, partnershipbrokers or network
conveners. Finally, the diversity of multi-sector groups andthe
complexity of issues they need to address represent a great
opportunity toboth apply proven action-learning approaches and to
truly break new ground.
My hope is that this chapter contributes to strengthening the
case for multi-sectorco-leadership development among leaders who
are concerned with the evolutionof our organizations and society –
both locally and globally. If pursued at the rightlevel of depth
and scale and with a long-term commitment, that orientation
willresult in profound changes in at least two key domains: 1)
design andimplementation of advanced leadership development and
career plan options forbusiness managers, public servants, NGO and
community leaders; 2) policiesand priorities of leadership
associations, international agencies, NGOs, anddonors who fund
development programs.
-
20
References1. Petra Künkel: Collective Leadership – A Pathway to
Collective
Intelligence, Collective Leadership Institute, 2005
–www.collectiveleadership.com
2. Ken Wilber: A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, 19963.
Riane Eisler: The Power of Partnership, New World Library, 20024.
Steve Waddell: Societal Learning and Change, Greenleaf
Publishing,
20055. International Business Leaders Forum: The Partnering
Toolbook, 2003,
www.iblf.org.6. Adam Kahane: Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way
of Talking,
Listening, and Creating New Realities, Berrett Koehler, 20047.
Bettye Pruitt and Steve Waddell: Dialogic Approaches to Global
Challenges: Moving from “Dialogue Fatigue” to Dialogic
ChangeProcesses, GDP Working Paper
05-08-31,www.generativedialogue.org/documents.
8. Alain Gauthier: Strategic Priorities, Section 50 in The Fifth
DisciplineFieldbook, by Peter Senge et al, Doubleday Currency,
1994
9. Ros Tennyson and Luke Wilde: The Guiding Hand –
Brokeringpartnerships for sustainable development, Prince of Wales
InternationalBusiness Leaders Forum and the United Nations Staff
College, 2000.
10. Rick Ross: The Ladder of Inference (Section 35); Rick Ross
and CharlotteRoberts: Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry (Section 36)
in The FifthDiscipline Fieldbook, Doubleday Currency, 1994
11. Bill Veltrop: www.theinfinitegames.com12. Mark Gerzon:
Leading Trough Conflict – How Successful Leaders
Transform Differences into Opportunities, Harvard Business
School Press,2005.
13. Jim Collins and Jerry Porras: Build to Last – Successful
Habits ofVisionary Companies, Harper Business, 1994.
14. Jim Collins: Good to Great – Why Some Companies Make the
Leap …and Others Don’t, Harper Business, 2001.
15. Alan Sasha Lithman: An Evolutionary Agenda for the Third
Millenium – APrimer for the Mutation of Consciouness, White Cloud
Press, 2003.
16. Bill Torbert and Associates: Action Inquiry – The Secret of
Timely andTransforming Leadership, Berrett Koehler, 2004.
17. Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey: How the Way we Talk Can Change
theWay we Work, Jossey Bass, 2001
18. Peter Senge, C.Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, Betty Sue
Flowers:Presence – Human Purpose and the Field of the Future, SoL,
2004.
19. C. Otto Scharmer: forthcoming book.20. Jim Collins: Good to
Great and the Social Sectors, A Monograph, 2005.21. Anne Svedsen
and Myriam Laberge: Convening Stakeholder Networks –
A New Way of Thinking, Being and Engaging, Journal of
CorporateCitizenship, Issue 19, 2005.
-
21
Table 1: PARTNERSHIP ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Individual partner’s intentions, attitudes and commitments-
Do I view the partnering approach as crucial to achieve our goals?-
Do I believe that my partners want the partnership to succeed?- Am
I committed to the outcomes of the partnership?- Am I willing to
challenge my assumptions?- Do I value the differences among us?- Do
I trust my partners to make a decision on my behalf?
2. Individual partner’s behaviours- Do I advocate for the
partnership approach?- Do I listen actively to my partners?- Do I
respect the partnership principles (equity, transparency, mutual
benefit)
in my daily behaviour?- Do I seek and give pointed and helpful
feedback from/to my partners?- Do I follow through on my
commitments?- Do I show respect for my partners even when they are
not present?- Do I support the development needs of my partners?-
Do I acknowledge my partners for their accomplishments?
3. Partnership’s mindsets, values and norms- Do we share an
understanding of the benefits and risks of partnering?- Are we
aligned around a shared vision and shared values?- Do we openly
share ideas even when they are different?- Are we open to change
our viewpoint about our stakeholders?- Are we giving each other the
benefit of the doubt?- Have we developed a culture of trust among
ourselves and around the partnership?- Are we continually looking
for opportunities to learn, change, and improve?
4. Partnerships’ structures, systems and strategies- Is our
partnering agreement clear and well understood by everyone?- Are
incentives in place for the partners to think and act for the
benefit of the
partnership?- Do we have the skills, competences and
technologies to succeed in our joint
efforts?- Do we have the structures and ground rules in place to
work effectively together?- Are we freely sharing the information
with our stakeholders?- Are our strategic priorities clear to
everyone concerned?- Do we set and respect high standards of
quality in everything we do?- Are we bringing the best and most
complementary resources to make the
partnership successful?- Do we institutionalize the partnership
so that it can continue working without us?
Framework adapted by Alain Gauthier from Ken Wilber in “A Brief
History of Everything”,Shambhala, 1996
-
22
Table 2: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS
1. Dealing with the skeptica. Set up a review procedure that
will enable the skeptic to ”benchmark”
the partnership approach against other development optionsb.
Invite the skeptic to attend a partnership meeting to hear other
people
(especially those whose opinion they particularly respect)
explain whythey support the partnership and what they expect to
achieve
c. Consciously ignore the skeptic until evidence supports
thepartnership’s growing effectiveness.
2. Changing mindsetsa. Arrange candid one-to-one sessions aiming
to explain the other
partners’ points of view and challenge preconceptions head-onb.
Hold a one-day tri-sector workshop with key players form the
various
partner organisations. Have each sector meet separately to
discusstheir sector’s strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and
competencies,as well as general attitudes toward the two other
sectors. Then bringthe groups together in a plenary session and ask
them to present theirviews to each other. Once the preconceptions
have been exposed andaddressed, the workshop can move on to
building genuinecollaboration
c. Arrange for key individuals from different sectors to change
places fora day (or more) to experience the other sector’s culture
and values firsthand.
3. Coping with multiple demandsa. Encourage partners to
demonstrate greater sensitivity to each other’s
situationb. Adjust the expectations that partners have of
themselves and each
other, so that they can more realistically decide what is
feasiblec. Restructure roles and responsibilities within the
partnership to take
account of partners’ availability in light of other demands on
their time.
4. Handle the “pressure” to go publica. Discuss the work in
progress as an example of “interesting” or
“innovative” practice, rather than “good” or (even less
desirable) “best”practice
b. Find realistic stories to tell, preferably more modest than
inflated.Partners will benefit from seeing some early result from
their efforts.Have the people directly involved in the stories
relate them, rather thanoutsiders or observers.
d. Seek stories that emphasise the process and learning aspects
of thepartnership, rather than the products and results.
Adapted by Alain Gauthier from Ros Tennyson’s and Luke Wilde’s
“The Guiding Hand”, UNSC, 2000
-
23
Table 3
Building a Polarity MapIllustration: Using Global vs. Local
Resources and Experience
Adapted from Barry Johnson’s Polarity Management - Identifying
and ManagingUnsolvable Problems, Human Resource Development,
1997
L+ G+
L- G-
(Positive outcomesfrom focusing onLocal resources)
(Positive outcomesfrom focusing onGlobal resources)
(Negative outcomesfrom focusing onlyon Local resourcesand
neglecting Global
help)
(Negative outcomesfrom focusing only on Global resourcesand
neglecting Localones)
Local Pole Global Pole
Upside
Downside
-
24
Table 4: SIX COMPONENTS OF TRUST
TRUSTWORTHINESSCapability Low High• Being honest 1 2 3 4 5•
Having the technical and human skills to fulfill one’s obligations
1 2 3 4 5• Demonstrating competence 1 2 3 4 5• Listening
empathetically 1 2 3 4 5• Setting and achieving high standards for
quality 1 2 3 4 5• Giving pointed and helpful feedback 1 2 3 4
5Commitment• Showing respect for each other even when others are
not present 1 2 3 4 5• Valuing and leveraging individual/cultural
differences 1 2 3 4 5• Openly sharing ideas even when they are
different 1 2 3 4 5• Taking the feelings and welfare of others into
consideration before acting 1 2 3 4 5• Holding self and others
accountable for living up to agreements 1 2 3 4 5• Supporting the
development needs of others 1 2 3 4 5Consistency• Saying what one
means and meaning what one says 1 2 3 4 5• Following through on
one’s commitment 100% 1 2 3 4 5• Delivering the same level of
effort 100% of the time 1 2 3 4 5• Walking one’s talk 1 2 3 4 5•
Taking positions that are clear and consistent 1 2 3 4 5
TRUST WILLINGNESSWillingness to invest• Having an accurate
assessment of the level of trust one intends to build 1 2 3 4 5•
Having an accurate assessment of what it will take to build trust 1
2 3 4 5• Taking active steps to build trust with others 1 2 3 4
5Willingness to examine assumptions• Continually challenging one’s
assumptions 1 2 3 4 5• Being open to change one’s point of view 1 2
3 4 5• Giving people the benefit of the doubt 1 2 3 4 5• Seeking
input and feedback from others 1 2 3 4 5• Freely admitting when one
is wrong 1 2 3 4 5• Harboring no prejudices about others that
negatively impact one’s relationships 1 2 3 4 5Willingness to risk•
Continually looking for opportunities to change and improve 1 2 3 4
5• Willing to risk failure to try new things 1 2 3 4 5• Willing to
talk about anything 1 2 3 4 5• Freely sharing all information;
having no secret 1 2 3 4 5• Frequently trusting others to make
decisions on one’s behalf 1 2 3 4 5• Granting others mistakes
without it affecting one’s level of trust 1 2 3 4 5• Readily
trusting even in new situations. 1 2 3 4 5
Adapted from Stephen Hacker’s and Marsha Willard’s “The Trust
Imperative”,ASQ Quality Press, 2001